[Updated on: Sat, 12 June 2004 20:07]

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Orca wrote on Sun, 13 June 2004 05:09

But if executed at the right time, for the right reasons, I don't see anything wrong with it.

Never a good time to backstab. Never. If I have to backstab to win, then I don't want to win. My

Ashlyn

Report message to a moderator

I agree with Ashlyn.. I play for fun, and sort of a Sci-Fi adventure.

Winning is only an extra for me

-Strat

Report message to a moderator

Hi!

Ashlyn wrote on Sun, 13 June 2004 06:14

Orca wrote on Sun, 13 June 2004 05:09 But if executed at the right time, for the right reasons, I don't see anything wrong with it. Never a good time to backstab. Never. If I have to backstab to win, then I don't want to win. My

If backstabbing would be the only option to make me win the solo-win game I'd consider it. That's also the only reason I'd consider it. IMO in that situation, when only 2 contenders for the solo victory would remain, the attack on the other one would hardly be called a backstab.
My
BR, Iztok

[Updated on: Sun, 13 June 2004 04:34]

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Sun, 13 June 2004 14:52]

Report message to a moderator

My personal opinion is that backstabbing is bad.
But that is just a personal approach for the importance of honor and integrity of character and, as it is a subjective argument, it is not valid in any true debate, so here is my constructive view about the subject:

Backstabbing is always bad (I known, never say always , but...) in the game for only one reason:

The game ends, you won (you had won that game easily didn't you ? If not you are really really stupid... ) but the problem is that your reputation becomes damage forever (hum, another bad word ...). And that is the problem: Human nature doesn't forgive and in other new game the other players will remember and guess what : revenge is a dish better served cold

The principal behind real backstabbing is not to gain a temporally advantage (that is stupidity only) but to cripple someone so bad that it is impossible for them to ever, ever, come against you in the future... The problem here is that new games are just that: NEW game and you don't keep the power of your previous game, just your bad reputation...

So if you do it, do it in a efficient manner: kill the real player and be sure that you will burn in hell

Another thing that I truly agree with vonKreedon is that you are only subject to backstabbing if you are weak! So, don't be or don't show your weakness and forget about backstabbing

- Sergio Silva

Report message to a moderator

RFOL, You know what, by reading this thread...


I know what players to keep my eyes on when I'm 'allied' to them

So the answer seems to be:
There no code, you do what you want, HOWEVER, you reap what you sow.... you suffer any consequences later on...

[Updated on: Mon, 14 June 2004 00:04]

Report message to a moderator

I have played in dozens of multiplayer games and there has never been strategic situation when i actually needed to backstab to win. Exiting an alliance has always been possible with more civilized manner.

Most people avoid exiting the alliances that do not suit their ambition to win. Been backstabbed is rare. Unfortunatelly mostly done clumsily but it is interesting experience.

So i think that player who does not honor this unwritten code is interesting playmate. Certainly i would play with him again.

The only two sorts of "players" i do not like are cheaters and dropouts.

[Updated on: Mon, 14 June 2004 03:55]

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Stikleback wrote on Mon, 14 June 2004 13:03

Personnally, I can't forsee a situation where I would backstab, but wouldn't it make an interesting subplot to a game if 2 of eight races were notified at between turns 50 and 80 that a neighbouring race had desecrated a holy place and they must go to war!

That sounds like a fun idea for a game- I can't start another one right now, but it would be fun! A whole new meaning to the word paraniod... I can see two types of races- those who play regularly, trusting to luck that their allies won't be chosen, and those who sit tight and defend their borders until after they know who has to go to war with whom. Even more fun would be the possibility of some races using it as an excuse to start a war, even if they were not chosen.
"I had to attack them... the host said so!"


Back on the origonal subject, I can't think of any time in a normal game when I would backstab- special game rules might make it worth it, but still almost never.

Report message to a moderator

vonKreedon wrote on Mon, 14 June 2004 23:01

Not to dig up Reagan so freshly in the ground, but his phrase, "Trust, but verify.", is extrodinarily well worded.

I dont love Russians and Reagan was certainly the best president you Americans got during last few decades, but its strange that old Russian proverb "Doveryai, no proveryai" is used a lot as Reagans own words. If i remember correctly he even quoted it in Russian to Gorbathchev.

Report message to a moderator

Kotk wrote on Tue, 15 June 2004 05:22

I dont love Russians and Reagan was certainly the best president you Americans got during last few decades, but its strange that old Russian proverb "Doveryai, no proveryai" is used a lot as Reagans own words. If i remember correctly he even quoted it in Russian to Gorbathchev.

Oops, ok thanks for the correction. Still, a great proverb for the subject at hand.

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

The other options of course are:
1)never to ally and always be strong enough to win without setting anyone to freind.
2) Never to trust anybody and so don't set anyone to freindly status - that way they can't get through your minefields or use your gates.
3) If you really feel you have to have an ally, make sure he gives you his password so you can check up on him or, make sure you keep a scout at every one of his planets so you can see what he builds - As soon as you see a gathering of warships - set him to neutral.

This is for the truly paranoid.... ....

Ptolemy

Report message to a moderator

Ptolemy wrote on Sat, 19 June 2004 07:50

The other options of course are: 1)never to ally and always be strong enough to win without setting anyone to freind. 2) Never to trust anybody and so don't set anyone to freindly status - that way they can't get through your minefields or use your gates. 3) If you really feel you have to have an ally, make sure he gives you his password so you can check up on him or, make sure you keep a scout at every one of his planets so you can see what he builds - As soon as you see a gathering of warships - set him to neutral. This is for the truly paranoid.... .... Ptolemy

I thought the greatest advantages of having ally is, except tech exchange, intersettling and combined attacks against another poor soul and with both being paranoid is hurting.
Because with optimal intersettlement it is quite possible that your "ally" has 80% of your planets in 50 LY radius of some of his. If he then has an idea from observing and communication, what planets will produce and what SB they have he can use a 1 year production at a planet to overpower SB+production there.
That it is irrelevant if he does it to one planet, but if he does it to 20-30 he might cut of a part of empire from stargate connection for 2+ turns(1 turn to get something up to shoot small forces down, next turn for gate) and that is enough if he gates rest of his forces+mini bombers to nearby planets the turn he attacks. So even if you set your "ally" from time to time to neutral, to keep him uncertain, he can still deliver a dangerous blow if intersettled. Therefore intersettling needs extra precautions for the true paranoid, like big fleets moving randomly around own planets.
Bigger problem is battles, especially the ones where your "ally" suggest "don't worry, i'll send the beamers and chaff your missle-heavy fleet is missing, lets attack the big fleet of our long term enemy(, who has same habs as you, but who could intersettle with me easily)" . See the problem? What do you do as true paranoid? I think only safe way is to avoid big battles, where you rely on your ally.
No combine intersettling with attacking and what do you get?
20% of your free warships(= those you could throw into attack, not those you need for guarding borders against official enemies) patrol to keep ally from backstabbing. And of your remaining 80% fleet strength you are only willing to send half to a battle where ally is present to keep reserves.
The result is that the combined fleet strengths of your and your ally(who is as paranoid) are only 160% of what a single player has and at a single battle you will have only 80% of what a single player can bring to a battle. With that limitations you will have a hard time to defeat a single player, if he has the defensive position.
Thats what i meant in one of the above post, if the distrust is too great, then the benefit of an alliance might drop drastically or even go to 0.
Also consider all the work to check every planet nearly every turn and the communicating neccesary to keep ally placid, while you have several medium sized fleets randomly moving, merging, splitting and being increased near a lot of his planets.
(Why did you move fleet to x there are just my planets near?
I moved there because you have enough ships and bombers there to destoy several of my planets.
But i have to gather them there otherwise our enemy will see them and they should be a surprise, move your fleet to y to make a diversion attack, then surprise will even be bigger.
As long as you have so many BBs and bombers there my fleet cannot go anywhere.
...
)

There has to be some trust, otherwise alliance is of little use.

Carn

Report message to a moderator